Chloe Wright
Editor-in-Chief
As the snow bespeckled my window, I snuggled underneath my blanket, brewed a cup of tea and watched my first Studio Ghibli film. After hearing from my friends about the pleasant, emotionally complex, gorgeous and swoon-worthy “Howl’s Moving Castle,” I turned on my television and braced myself for a life changing movie. The winter setting was perfect, after all, so I expected greatness. But I finished the movie asking one blunt question: Is this what social media calls a “romantic movie”?
The sweeping, majestic fantasy film follows the young hatmaker Sophie, cursed to become an old woman, who railroads her way into a job cleaning for Howl, the cranky wizard, his immature assistant and his witty fire demon. In 2005, Studio Ghibli adapted the first of Diana Wynne Jones’ “Moving Castle” series. Commonly, people talk more about the animated version. Social media reviews fan themselves over the titular Howl and his grand displays of affection towards Sophie. Instagram edits pop up on my feed of them magically prancing in the sky. People cosplay these characters in wide, open fields with a far-off look in their eyes, staring off into a bright future of love. Each time, however, I wonder if these people and I watched the same movie.
Fans should not hold this relationship on a pedestal, and they should instead look to the film’s source material — Jones’ children’s fantasy novel from which the movie was adapted— to find a more developed and believable romantic relationship.
To establish a romance in a plot, at the bare minimum, writers need to have characters interact. In the film adaptation, I realized how little Howl and Sophie actually talk to each other. Their small but admittedly sweet interactions built up to what I thought would be a budding crush. And yet, no. The film expects the viewer to believe that Sophie has fallen in love with Howl after an hour and a half of screentime. The previously mentioned grand gestures — for example, Howl magically created a garden with a house and flowers he knew Sophie would like — are quite cute. However, if there is no build-up, and the audience lacks an emotional connection with this couple, Howl planted all those flowers for nothing.
Two positives from the film are the stunning soundtrack and visual design, and I argue that these tools are the driving force behind this “Howl and Sophie are perfect” propaganda. The artists and animators working behind the scenes deserve endless praise. Composer Joe Hisaishi is my favorite film composer, I would never say a bad word about the animation and soundtrack. But their perfection is my issue; Hisaishi and the animators worked so hard that the Howl and Sophie pairing looks flawless on screen. If someone watches the scene of them walking through the garden as Hisaishi’s string instruments swell and the carefully painted mountain background rests behind the couple, they will swoon. It’s science. The medium is the message and so on.
Looking at how the novel depicts their budding romance, we can see how Jones creates a more unique, convincing relationship. The screenwriters stripped Howl and Sophie of what made their relationship so distinct: their banter. Howl and Sophie complained, whined and bickered at each others’ company for pages upon pages and, at the same time, gradually grew close. Fans of rivals-to-lovers would eat Jones’ work up. In the movie, aside from a couple of small jabs and compliments, they barely talked about their lives, backstories, worries about the future, etc. Miyazaki’s work carries a little edge. In the film’s English version, the fire demon, Sophie and the evil witch who cursed her squabbled frequently. If only the screenwriters allocated that energy to the couple, I would not mind as much.
I focus on the film’s romantic plot because comparing the children’s fantasy novel and its film adaptation beat for beat will not make a substantial argument. I don’t expect the film to recreate Howl and Sophie’s quibbling word-for-word. Artists have the power to adapt, reinvent and reinterpret their material to give a new life to the adaptation. If I focus on one aspect that viewers hold in high esteem, I can better debunk the idea that “Howl’s Moving Castle” is a good romantic movie. After reading Jones’ work myself, I noticed that she has a pretty easy advantage over Miyazaki; she can have the characters talk more. In terms of Howl and Sophie as a romantic duo, I can confidently say the cliché: The book is better than the movie.
Before anyone grabs pitchforks because I’m criticizing this movie, I understand. Miyazaki won 19 awards for this film alone, not to mention his work on the industry-changing movie “Spirited Away” which was released a couple years before “Howl’s Moving Castle.” I am yet a mere English major who finds herself confused about the movie’s reputation as a romance. I simply wanted to love the film adaptation of Jones’ work with the fire that many fans have online. Alas, I will cherish the music, artistry, vibes and not the whimsical people on my screen.